An appellate court must respect a trial court's acquittal unless evidence of manifest injustice is clear and compelling.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 02.01.2017 in Special (Electricity) Case No.12 of 2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and 7^th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 150 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused No.2 was the owner of a house situated in Shankar Takeri area in Bapa Sitaram Chowk, opposite the lane of Shaikh Floor Mill and the accused No.2 had given the property on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 had started an electric furnace for making brass parts, and even though, the accused no.1 was not a consumer of electricity, he had directly taken an electricity line from the pole and the wiring was done by absconding accused Kamlesh Mohanal Nimawat. A III- phase power line was taken and the electric furnace was being used and 18.1 kilo watt of electricity was illegally used by the accused No.1. On 27.08.2005, a checking squad of the Gujarat Electricity Board had checked the place and found that the theft of electricity of Rs.5,02,590.06/- was committed by the accused, and hence, a complaint was filed by the complainant Jaydeep Jayantkumar Bhatt, Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board at the PGVCL Police Station, Rajkot, which was registered as II-CR No.734 of 2005 under sections 135 and 150 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT 2003.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.12 of 2012.

2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exhs.4 and 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and has produced 13 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135 (1) and 150 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to